« David Brooks loves adjectives | Main | The motive dodge »

November 16, 2007


True, but I think the actual distinctions on issues are so slight that the few distinctions that exist have to be magnified, e.g. SSI income caps, DL licenses for illegals, etc. And on their own, those issues don't ignite real passion or interest over the long haul, especially among less committed "in-play" voters.

Therefore, process becomes a vehicle for personality. It's not process qua process, but process as a proxy, and a medium, for that candidate's vision. Obama has indeed chosen that more difficult route, but he is doing it very well. That is the only candidate he CAN be, so whether he will change is moot - I don't think he can.

Besides, the public's grievances with the current admin are mainly ones of process and not necessarily issues IMHO. The basic language of political process is more widely understood now than it has been in recent generations - the real question is not whether the middlebrow voter can understand it, but whether any candidate can speak it. Given some time to make his case, Obama can (and is).

And the "issues" are hardly that, at this moment in history. They are an ossified set of litmus tests having demonstrably little connection to real policies. They are a dumbed-down political Myers-Briggs test which have become so hackneyed that the only question is which candidate can game it the most proficiently (and raise the requisite cash in the process).

Have faith. I think the voters in Iowa will.

The comments to this entry are closed.